» Articles » PMID: 36099023

Stomatal Conductance Tracks Soil-to-leaf Hydraulic Conductance in Faba Bean and Maize During Soil Drying

Overview
Journal Plant Physiol
Specialty Physiology
Date 2022 Sep 13
PMID 36099023
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although regulation of stomatal conductance is widely assumed to be the most important plant response to soil drying, the picture is incomplete when hydraulic conductance from soil to the leaf, upstream of the stomata, is not considered. Here, we investigated to what extent soil drying reduces the conductance between soil and leaf, whether this reduction differs between species, how it affects stomatal regulation, and where in the hydraulic pathway it occurs. To this end, we noninvasively and continuously measured the total root water uptake rate, soil water potential, leaf water potential, and stomatal conductance of 4-week-old, pot-grown maize (Zea mays) and faba bean (Vicia faba) plants during 4 days of water restriction. In both species, the soil-plant conductance, excluding stomatal conductance, declined exponentially with soil drying and was reduced to 50% above a soil water potential of -0.1 MPa, which is far from the permanent wilting point. This loss of conductance has immediate consequences for leaf water potential and the associated stomatal regulation. Both stomatal conductance and soil-plant conductance declined at a higher rate in faba bean than in maize. Estimations of the water potential at the root surface and an incomplete recovery 22 h after rewatering indicate that the loss of conductance, at least partly, occurred inside the plants, for example, through root suberization or altered aquaporin gene expression. Our findings suggest that differences in the stomatal sensitivity among plant species are partly explained by the sensitivity of root hydraulic conductance to soil drying.

Citing Articles

Plants breathing under pressure: mechanistic insights into soil compaction-induced physiological, molecular and biochemical responses in plants.

Hasan M, Liu X, Rahman M, Hazzazi Y, Wassem M, Ghimire S Planta. 2025; 261(3):52.

PMID: 39894859 DOI: 10.1007/s00425-025-04624-1.


Contrasting the soil-plant hydraulics of beech and spruce by linking root water uptake to transpiration dynamics.

Martinetti S, Molnar P, Carminati A, Floriancic M Tree Physiol. 2024; 45(1).

PMID: 39658309 PMC: 11761973. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpae158.


Fruit Water Stress Index of Apple Measured by Means of Temperature-Annotated 3D Point Cloud.

Tsoulias N, Khosravi A, Herppich W, Zude-Sasse M Plant Phenomics. 2024; 6:0252.

PMID: 39295747 PMC: 11408935. DOI: 10.34133/plantphenomics.0252.


Integrated Effects of Soil Moisture on Wheat Hydraulic Properties and Stomatal Regulation.

Wang L, Zhang Y, Luo D, Hu X, Feng P, Mo Y Plants (Basel). 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39204699 PMC: 11359431. DOI: 10.3390/plants13162263.


Real-Time Dynamics of Water Transport in the Roots of Intact Maize Plants in Response to Water Stress: The Role of Aquaporins and the Contribution of Different Water Transport Pathways.

Suslov M, Daminova A, Egorov J Cells. 2024; 13(2).

PMID: 38247845 PMC: 10814095. DOI: 10.3390/cells13020154.


References
1.
Bourbia I, Pritzkow C, Brodribb T . Herb and conifer roots show similar high sensitivity to water deficit. Plant Physiol. 2021; 186(4):1908-1918. PMC: 8331161. DOI: 10.1093/plphys/kiab207. View

2.
Rodriguez-Dominguez C, Brodribb T . Declining root water transport drives stomatal closure in olive under moderate water stress. New Phytol. 2019; 225(1):126-134. DOI: 10.1111/nph.16177. View

3.
Galmes J, Pou A, Alsina M, Tomas M, Medrano H, Flexas J . Aquaporin expression in response to different water stress intensities and recovery in Richter-110 (Vitis sp.): relationship with ecophysiological status. Planta. 2007; 226(3):671-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00425-007-0515-1. View

4.
Duddek P, Carminati A, Koebernick N, Ohmann L, Lovric G, Delzon S . The impact of drought-induced root and root hair shrinkage on root-soil contact. Plant Physiol. 2022; 189(3):1232-1236. PMC: 9237671. DOI: 10.1093/plphys/kiac144. View

5.
Buckley T . How do stomata respond to water status?. New Phytol. 2019; 224(1):21-36. DOI: 10.1111/nph.15899. View